How the Instant Pot cooker developed a cult following - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39058736 <comment><USER4> Have had one since Black Friday.

I feel generally competent in the kitchen to the point where assembling a nice meal (dare I say gourmet?) from scratch without a recipe is relatively easy for me.

That said, I've found the Instant Pot to have a steep learning curve.

For starters, you can't easily check on the food while it cooks, so if you are experimenting with large batch sizes and timing you are kind of gambling and have to wait till it is done (sometimes an hour) to see if you ruined something.

It is hard to find consistent info on how long to cook certain things, and it is easy to overcook things into mush.

And for anyone citing cooking time of a couple minutes... That's just misleading. Most recipes quote how many minutes to set it for. They do not tell you it takes upwards of 15 minutes to come up to pressure in some cases, and depending on the release instructions, some things can take another 20-30 minutes to release pressure if it is a large volume of liquid.

That said, it makes amazing steel cut oatmeal and we've had a couple other successes.

I'd love more recipes that were purely easy quick prep, toss it all in, no extra cooking steps (like finishing in the oven), and good for making easily freezable and quick to reheat one pot meals. Many recipes I've found are overly involved to the point where the IP seems unnecessary.

I desperately want to use it more, but so many recipes fail to meet the above criteria. Hopefully that improves. Maybe my expectations are just too high?

<comment><USER5> The secret to the Instant Pot, I've found, is using it for things it does well. Beans and bean-based dishes are a home run every time. Chicken broth and beef bone broth are great, too. Slow cooker favorites like pot roast and pulled pork? Not so much, in my opinion. These dishes need more time to break down the collagen slowly without destroying the meat and veggies. I much prefer them in the slow cooker. Oatmeal is great but I can make it faster and better on the stovetop.

I've been working on adapting family favorite recipes to the IP. My favorites so far:

My Cajun mother-in-law's real deal red beans and rice recipe: [https://gist.github.com/chrissnell/2ee0a820b7ba7c25a12d1b253...](https://gist.github.com/chrissnell/2ee0a820b7ba7c25a12d1b253d1aaf48)

My grandmother's refried beans from her regionally famous 1960s-era Tex-Mex cookbook: [https://gist.github.com/chrissnell/c87a98b7ee3239065737eaf14...](https://gist.github.com/chrissnell/c87a98b7ee3239065737eaf14657db71)

<comment><USER6> According to seriouseats, the only thing a slow cooker is best at is keeping food warm, carmelized onions and bread pudding. [http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/10/why-pressure-cookers- are-...](http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/10/why-pressure-cookers-are-better- than-slow-cookers.html)

I certainly getter results doing pot roast & pulled pork in a pressure cooker than a slow cooker.

<comment><USER7> The main problem with slow cookers are that the liquid is not reduced properly which have to be done as a separate step using an ordinary sauce pan.

If you do a 7-hour lamb in a pot in an oven, you have the opposite problem, as it's a bit warmer, and might have to glue together the lid with dough. I think the taste will be better though, as I think there is more caramelisation going on at higher temperatures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is pretty funny for me to read. As the article mentions many people apparently did, I picked up an Instant Pot on Prime Day last year. I had no idea there was such a following around it until reading this, I just wanted a pressure cooker.

I received it, and stuck it in my closet expecting to pull it out when I needed to pressure cook something. My wife discovered it pretty soon after and began using it for several tasks I didn't even realize it was capable of. She absolutely loves the thing, to the point I was joking with her about it. It's funny to me to see that our experience is far from unique.

<comment><USER9> What's an example of a task you didn't think it was capable of?

<comment><USER10> Hard boiled eggs are a lot easier - you barely even have to think about it.

<comment><USER11> And the pressure makes them very easy to peel.

<comment><USER12> Really? Now I'm wishing I hadn't given away our unused pressure cooker in our most recent housing move.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's great to see the Instant Pot on Hacker News.

A couple of key takeaways:

\- There's no marketing magic here, this is just a great product.

\- It's ugly, and the interface is weird. Doesn't matter, it gets the job done.

\- Pressure cookers have been around for a long time, they're a really great cooking technology marred by some serious safety and inconvenience issues. There are a bunch of companies competing in Sous Vide right now (the hot new cooking trend) but the Instant Pot guys just took old technology and made it slightly better.

edit: formatting

<comment><USER14> Use the Breville version, and you will not complain about the user interface. The whole thing is gorgeous.

<comment><USER15> Do you have a model number, or a link?

<comment><USER16> I think it's this one [https://www.amazon.com/Breville-Fast-Slow-Pro- Silver/dp/B013...](https://www.amazon.com/Breville-Fast-Slow-Pro- Silver/dp/B013I40R8E/?tag=se-equipment-20)

<comment><USER15> Thanks very much!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am part of the cult. We bought after the recommendation of a friend. What I liked: nice set of presets, comes with a cookbook with quite a few recipes, very easy to operate.

Some time ago, when Apple bailed out of self-driving car business, my friend and I discussed what would be the good category for Apple to try next and I suggested advanced kitchen devices. Seriously though: instant pot with Nespresso machine are close to best damn money I spent. Currently I am investigating Anova devices and dreaming about something that would cut down (hehe) my peeling and chopping time.

<comment><USER18> I find some basic knife skills to be a huge labor saver. I've had the same decent (ie, not serrated) $25 chef's knife for decades and can plow through basic veg prep in a few minutes. I don't like all the extra gadgets except a peeler. When I factor in setting up and washing some chopping or slicing machine, I'm way faster with just a knife and board. Two things to wash. And the board is also used to hold stuff on its way to the pot, so that cuts down on temp bowls too.

Watch one good video on how to dice an onion an you're 90pct there.

<comment><USER19> Food processors (proper ones, not hand "choppers" and the like - those are nearly pointless) are a terrible replacement for basic knife skills.

What they are mostly great at is a few things that are so labor intensive (ever made hummus by hand?) you otherwise might not bother. Also a good time saver for things like pasta dough.

<comment><USER20> Good for making mayo and the like by hand and for thin slicing potatoes and carrots. The biggest issue for me is setup + cleanup >> use time for most cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When you've got a great product, your users become your extended sales force: I've bought this for my relatives for the holiday season and have recommended it to my friends. I think Amazon recommendation system opens new product avenues like this that didn't exist before.

It is easy to praise this product -- it combines a rice cooker with a pressure cooker and stew simmer (and, I guess, a yogurt maker) all in one device that saves kitchen storage and counter top space. They've thought of lots of stuff: making the seal easily replaceable, and allowing you to buy extra tin cans with lids (from cooking right to refrigerator). The cans are perfect size for the dish washer, etc. It's well designed, solves an urgent need, solidly built and just works.

</comment><comment><USER6> The Instant Pot came on the market with perfect timing, just as the pressure cooker started to go from "geek" to "mainstream" in its adoption curve. The fawning press articles claim that it was Instant Pot that took pressure cooking from niche to mainstream, but I don't buy that -- I think it would have happened anyways.

It's a good pressure cooker. A good stovetop one will be faster, but it's only significant if you've got a gas or induction range. And of course the stovetop models don't have any automation.

And it's half the price of a good stovetop model.

<comment><USER22> > just as the pressure cooker started to go from "geek" to "mainstream" in its > adoption curve.

It's really really weird to read that, in europe pressure cookers have been mainstays of most every kitchen for decades, especially after SEB's "super cocotte" (released in '53, they'd sold 10 million by '69).

<comment><USER23> Exactly.

 _" Most people have some concept of urban legends of exploding pressure cookers in their grandmother's kitchens," says Mr Qin._

Am in Europe, literally everyone has a pressure cooker, never heard about them actually exploding.

<comment><USER24> Water heaters have many times the risk of exploding, and nobody blinks. Its strange how cookers got that reputation.

<comment><USER25> Presumably it's because people typically don't stand near water heaters, so there's less risk of injury in the event of an explosion.

<comment><USER24> [http://citywideplumbingpros.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/w...](http://citywideplumbingpros.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/02/water-heater-explosion.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> There's a "smart" version of the Instant Pot that has its own scripting language!

[http://instantpot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/How-to- writ...](http://instantpot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/How-to-write-recipe- script-for-Instant-Pot-Smart-v1.0.pdf)

<comment><USER27> What a great tool to get my non-techie instant-pot-using-relatives to understand what I do at my day job... but on a larger scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It appears that Americans have simply re-discovered what the much of the world (Europe+Asia) have known for a long time - pressure cookers are safe and make cooking simpler.

<comment><USER29> My family has been using those for 30+ years, and of course I bought one when I moved out. Apart from the occasional failing sealing ring (every 4 years or so), they are low maintenance and consistently produce good meals. You have to watch that you don't burn the bottom though when you are cooking for 2+ hours - just don't turn up the heat too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Indian here living in US. We used always get pressure cookers from india since they used to last longer and it's hard to find good ones here. But last prime day I brought one and I feel this is better than one which we use in India . Better - Cleaning this is a easy , ease of use and safety

<comment><USER31> Indian here. Glad to see your comment. I bought one during prime day (because I was curious about electric pressure cooker and needed a replacement for the desi cooker soon). And it is still in the sealed box :)

Now I want to use it asap! Never realized it had a cult following (article looks like a PR material though)

<comment><USER30> Ya you should. I think many of us think it is similar to regular electric cooker but forgot to note it is "electric PRESSURE" cooker.

<comment><USER32> How does it work for different variety of pulses used in Indian cooking? For instance, I use x whistles in a conventional pressure cooker for one kind of daal vs y whistles for another kind. How well does the whistle semantic translate here?

<comment><USER30> Because here you have two settings/ways

1) Steam is contained inside and not released

2) Steam is released

So rather than x whistles it based on the time.

For example for one cup of Toor dal (Yellow peas / pigeon peas spilt ) we put it for 16minutes with steam valve closed.

<comment><USER31> so, its a trial and error way to figure out the time equivalent of whistles?

<comment><USER30> Already many people tried and have a pretty good documented time. So it will work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Three things Instant Pot does that my older non-electric pressure cookers could not do:

1\. Preserve the shape of the food being cooked. The older non-electric cooker would mush all the garbanzo beans or vegetables into a mash. When I cooked with the instant pot for the first time, I thought nothing was cooked fully because every vegetable and bean still were mostly in its original shape.

2\. No noise. Non-electric cookers have the steam whistle to vent out excess steam which is noisy and annoying. Instant pot does not have that.

3\. It has two pressure settings - lo and high pressure. When I bought it, very few of them offered this option.

Most electric pressure cookers come with a coated aluminum pot. Instant Pot was one of the first ones to offer a stainless steel container. This was the original reason I bought an Instant Pot.

<comment><USER34> I'm not sure if you are using your regular pressure cooker correctly. Your vegetables should come out similar as if you steamed them. You are probably cooking them too long. The pressure cooker also shouldn't have to vent all the time. At least with my Kuhn Rikkon you have to carefully adjust the temperature to ensure the food is at the right temperature and then very little venting should happen. Of course that also requires constant monitoring and adjusting. But most things only need pressure cooking for 5-10 minutes anyways.

<comment><USER33> Maybe I was cooking them too long. I used to have a $90 cooker (I think it was T-Fal), but I could never get it to cook correctly. With Instant pot, the cooking time does not seem to matter. Same thing with venting. I could never get it to vent without much noise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I bought an Instant Pot after reading a recommendation on obesity researcher Stephan Guyenet's blog: [http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/instant- pot-...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/instant-pot- electronic-pressure-cooker.html)

I've been using it regularly since then and I highly recommend it. I had a manual pressure cooker many years ago but I rarely used it because it was too much hassle. The automation and easy cleaning of the Instant Pot makes a big difference. I rate it second only to the microwave oven as most useful cooking technology.

<comment><USER36> Same here! I'd never considered buying one until I saw Guyenet's endorsement. He's loath to recommend specific products so I knew it was a genuine endorsement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is amazing. I am serious.

An electric pressure cooker brand (I've never heard of, but I don't like in Canada/US which seems to be the prime market) took over the electric pressure cooker market by adding buttons instead of a twist-dial timer where you manually set the desired time (my electric pressure cooker, which came free with by fridge years ago, and may be part of the reference to scaring people about exploding... they don't... they have cut-off devices if the wrong time is dialed) and a bunch of links and given some Googling what appears to be discount codes to incentivise bloggers.

Quite an amazing success. Smart targeting of an old-tech.

<comment><USER35> The Instant Pot does not run for a fixed time. It has a pressure sensor and only starts the timer when it has reached sufficient pressure. This means you can do things like cook frozen vegetables perfectly without weighing them, because they will condense the steam and keep the pressure below the starting threshold until they are defrosted.

I'm not aware of any previous pressure cooker that had Instant Pot level automation.

<comment><USER37> > The Instant Pot does not run for a fixed time. It has a pressure sensor and > only starts the timer when it has reached sufficient pressure.

Yes, this is exactly what my pressure cooker does. There's a dial, which has indicative minutes, and a picture of what's cooked under certain minutes around the dial, for example a small icon of a bunch of beans appears under the 40 minute dial, similar for other items. But total cooking time rarely ends up at 40 minutes (for beans, indicated at 40 minutes for example when starting from cold water and unsoaked beans) because it pre-heats to starting temperature and then kicks-off. The heating plate heats pretty quickly, which also makes sense when seeing recipe examples for browning meat before starting the pressure cooking.

Seems identical, just analogue control. Just a standard modern pressure cooker without a bit of marketing a dial in-place of buttons.

I also have a pressure cooker for the gas stove, significantly larger, and while that takes manual timing it has a release valve if steam pressure gets too high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I have been using one for more than a year. It makes cooking so easy and quick and the flavor stays inside and food turns out really delicious. Best part is it doesn't even make slightest of the sound or smoke.One of my best buys.

<comment><USER39> I'm having dinner tonight from an instant pot but it hasn't lived up to the hype for me.

What do you cook in there that you've really enjoyed?

<comment><USER38> I make indian dishes mostly, Dal comes out perfect. I cook veg, like green beans - only takes 3 min (5 if you add warm-up time) which otherwise will take 20-30 min. I also cook pasta - low pressure for 6 min gives perfect la dante!

<comment><USER40> > I also cook pasta - low pressure for 6 min gives perfect la dante!

That's... about the same amount of time it takes on the stovetop, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It's strange. I was in the market for a pressure cooker that could double as a slow cooker, and saw the recommendation for Instant Pot over and over.

I eventually went with a Power brand pressure cooker (it was pretty much the same price at Costco, and I've had much better luck with Costco's warranties than Amazon's), which as best I can figure looks nearly identical, has the exact same functionality sans maybe a yogurt option, and should in theory be able to cook the same stuff in the same time. But whenever I ask for recipes, all I get is, "No man, you've _gotta_ have an Instant Pot for this."

<comment><USER42> Biggest difference between the two is the cooking vessel (Teflon-coated vs. Stainless).

Also, the fact that the Power Pressure Cooker XL is "As Seen on TV!" turns me off personally, but I that may not be a universal reaction.

<comment><USER43> I have the same aversion to such products, but sometimes those "As Seen On TV" things aren't so bad. My parents' Ronco Rotisserie Oven is still kicking after well over a decade and makes some boss kabobs and roasts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I bought an Instant Pot about 5 years ago because I saw some good recipes and a suggestion on a Paleo blog. The price on Amazon seemed reasonable at the time, so I figured "why not." It turned out to be an incredible purchase. I've grown to hate single use devices that take up space in my kitchen (ugh, blenders, crock pots), but the Instant Pot is so versatile that it earns its keep.

I've long since abandoned that whole Paleo thing, but the Instant Pot still makes great meals. I don't need a crock pot in addition to this. It makes amazing pulled pork and carnitas. I can throw a whole chicken in there and have it falling off of the bone in less than an hour. I can brown beef in it before adding other ingredients for a good stew or chili. It makes really good hard-boiled eggs (though I've recently discovered eggs in my sous-vide and will never cook them another way). I don't know how the Instant Pot brand compares to other electric pressure cookers, but I'm 100% satisfied with mine.

I liked it so much that I bought my parents one for Christmas two years ago and upgraded mine from the previous model to the newer model on last year's Prime Day mentioned in the article. The newer model solved my one gripe with the previous model (setting the lid on the counter was awkward when taking it off).

I recommend these things to everybody. Whether you enjoy cooking or not, the Instant Pot makes cooking meals easier.

<comment><USER45> Ahh blenders are not single use. I make mayo, soups, sauces, ice, hummus

<comment><USER46> You make ice with a blender? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I must be the only person unconvinced by the Instant Pot!

I don't like having to braise/sear meat and caramelise onions directing in the IP on "Saute" mode - it's always either too hot or too cool. This process is much easier on the hob with a frying pan.. Which is fine, but then I have two things to clean.

If I want the benefits of a pressure cooker, I'll just buy one of those.

Oh and the UX on the IP is horrific! I needed the manual every time I used it (about five times).

<comment><USER48> My tip for the UX is to ignore all the special buttons, and just use high and low pressure for a specific amount of time.

The cheaper pots don't even bother with all the magic setting buttons.

<comment><USER47> That sounds like you're suggesting I just use a normal pressure cooker :p

<comment><USER49> Except you don't have to watch the fire.

<comment><USER47> Pfft you don't have to sit and stare at hobs because there's fire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Does anyone know what the energy usage of the Instant Pot is overall compared to other methods of cooking?

I've explored various off-grid methods of living and the energy requirements involving food (both storage and preparation) can be surprisingly high. I'm curious to see if the efficiency gained by using a pressure vessel results in substantial energy savings.

</comment><comment><USER51> What's the difference to the decades old Rice cooker you can find in any Chinese home at least once?

Really weird that this doesn't seem to get mentioned anywhere in the comments or article. It Looks so much more like a Rice cooker than a pressure cooker.

<comment><USER52> It has multiple power settings, rather than just heat-to-boil until the water has steamed off and the temperature jumps like in a rice cooker (which, admittedly, is a simple enough profile to be useful when cooking a lot more than rice - I lived on my rice cooker through college). These power settings can be controlled electronically by a timer.

And, regardless of what it looks like, it can be set up as a pressure cooker. This makes it an all-in-one rice cooker, pressure cooker, and crock pot/slow cooker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I just got one of these a week ago and I've used it for brown rice, steel cut oats, rolled oats, and black beans. It did a great job on all these. It is especially nice on making a really quick oatmeal with dates and nuts thrown in. It does brown rice really well without burning it. You throw it in and start if. If you forget to come back to it, it just keeps the food warm without noticeably overcooking it.

I like the fact that the innards in contact with food are stainless steel and silicone instead of some non-stick or aluminum surface. I like the build quality. It is enameled steel inside, with a big heat sink that presumably smooths out the temperature changes as the heater cycles. It feels like it actually cost something to build as opposed to the flimsy feel of other rice cookers.

I have not tried anything too challenging yet... am curious about odder things to cook in a pressure cooker (cheesecake, really?)

My only complaint so far is that the user interface is a little bit opaque. Why does it play a jaunty little tune when you seal it up, but not when it is done cooking? Why does it just say "ON" while pre-heating? I'd like it more if it would more clearly differentiate between the various modes and states. It seems like the UX could be a little better. But I do like the fact that if you do the same thing over and over, it would be extremely quick to do that, just push one button, it recalls the last cooking time, and starts automatically.

</comment><comment><USER11> I got one for Christmas. I've been cooking more than half of my meals with it. It's great.

Here's a few things I tried:

\- Mississippi pot roast

\- Carnitas

\- Pulled pork

\- Cilantro lime basmati rice

\- Butter chicken

\- Chili

\- Chicken breast

\- Crack slaw

\- Pulled chicken

\- Chinese hot pot

\- Hard boiled eggs

\- Soft boiled eggs

\- Steamed broccoli

\- Steamed cauliflower

\- Kale and bacon

\- Mussels

\- Cheese cake

\- Meatloaf

\- Italian sausages

\- Beef curry

\- Poached salmon

\- Pork ribs

\- Swedish meatballs

\- Taco meat

\- Chicken fajitas

\- Black beans

<comment><USER54> My wife has prepared a lot of these dishes in the past, but without a pressure cooker. So, what's different with the pressure cooker is that the cooking time for these dishes is much lower?

<comment><USER33> I would not even categorize the cooking time to be lower for many dishes (Because you will need the pressure to vent slowly for 20 mins unless you manually vent it). It is more of once things are inside the pot, you do not have to tend to it till it is done. The cooking time certainly helps for dishes like pot roast and it tenderizes tough cuts of meat much better without dehydrating them. Having said that, the above holds true for any well built electric pressure cooker. Instant pot is just a well built electric pressure cooker.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I bought one to replace a rice cooker which had (aging) teflon coating.

The instantpot is a bit slower but it has a stainless steel pot and can do a lot more than just cooking rice and steam vegetables. Moreover, it's actually cheaper and sturdier than the alternatives I considered.

Good product, would recommend. I try to stay away from pressure cooking, coffee brewing and knife sharpening communities though, maybe do I watch those swedish steel axes benchmarks, for some reason ;)

<comment><USER42> > The instantpot is a bit slower

Are you pressure cooking your rice or using the "rice" setting? I've found rice to cook faster in this vs. my old Aroma rice cooker...

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Is this different from any of the other similar cooking devices?

</comment><comment><USER57> There's so little innovation and so much to improve in home appliances it's ridiculous

<comment> nommm-nommm Such as?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> >"Cooking is a social and emotional practice that creates a lot of meaning in our lives...So a product that takes centre stage in cooking practices also creates a sense of attachment by being an agent in our social and emotional lives."

Note that this is the _opposite_ of Soylent, which treats cooking and eating as a distraction from the central problem of nutrition.

(I suppose you could alternatively say it's a _complement_ to Soylent, which you could characterize as unhitching nutrition from cooking and eating rather than banning them from the process, letting people _choose_ whether they want to pick up all the activities together or separately.)

</comment><comment><USER59> Cult member here.

When I got mine after black friday, I made an chicken curry (my own spice blend) and it was fantastic. Total time from start to finish was about 30 minutes and only 10 of that was prep time, cutting onions/meat, blending spices, sautéing and roasting the spices. I think I did 8 minutes on high pressure, then natural pressure release. I've also made steel cut oats, jambalaya, rice, chili, and bean soup from dried beans. Clean up is easy which is a big plus in my book.

</comment><comment><USER60> How open and hackable/interfacable is the Instant Pot? I own a Thermomix which is pretty locked down and closed. I'd love a machine with that functionality (good blade+heating pot in one basically) and the ability to build my own tools to interact with it. The guided cooking of the Thermomix is pretty neat (essentially a touchscreen with instructions and preloaded recipes). I'd love that in open (use my own recipes etc.).

</comment><comment><USER61> I find meat cooked by pressure cookers and especially slow cookers sort of disgusting.

Mainly it boils down (pun intended) to the texture and the meat is lacking in caramelization (maillard reaction).

But I haven't tried the Instant Pot so maybe it has a solution for that.

If I could grill all the time I would. I almost can as I have a kamado style grill which has its own cult following as well (see Kamado Guru [1]).

There isn't much you can't cook on one of those grills.

[1]: [https://www.kamadoguru.com/](https://www.kamadoguru.com/)

<comment><USER62> I usually try to sear the outside of the meat before I throw it into a slow cooker. I use cheap, tougher meats that wouldn't really be desirable cooked any other way.

<comment><USER63> Definitely this. Sear your meat, then slow-cook it, then, if you want, broil it to crisp it up. I do this when making carnitas and they turn out amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Reminds me of the ThermoMix: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermomix](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermomix)

From Wikipedia:

'The functions can be accessed simultaneously to provide what the manufacturer calls "12 functions": steaming, emulsifying, blending, precise heating, mixing, milling, whipping, kneading, chopping, weighing, grinding and stirring. Several of these differ only by the speed of the motor.'

</comment><comment><USER65> I am Instant Pot patient zero in my social circles. I have infected almost everyone I know, and they have infected almost everyone they know. It's just that good.

</comment><comment><USER66> [perhaps related] The late, great Roger Ebert wrote a book about rice cookers: "The Pot and How to Use It: The Mystery and Romance of the Rice Cooker". Like pretty much everything Ebert ever wrote, it's excellent:

[https://www.amazon.com/Pot-How-Use-Mystery- Romance/dp/074079...](https://www.amazon.com/Pot-How-Use-Mystery- Romance/dp/0740791427)

<comment> et-al (And this is the original blog post that inspired the book: [http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-pot-and-how- to-...](http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-pot-and-how-to-use-it))

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Instant Pots are AWESOME for meal prep especially for those who are bulking/cutting weight. In under one hour on a Sunday night, I prepared enough chicken, brown rice, and veggies to eat for lunch every day for a week (I don't eat breakfast and generally eat salad for dinner). The food tasted decent, but the amount of time spent on preparation can't be beat.

</comment><comment><USER68> Surprised no one has mentioned the HIP Pressure Cooking website or book, both fantastic. Their buyers guide is a must if you're new to the cult:

[https://www.hippressurecooking.com/pressure-cooker-buying- gu...](https://www.hippressurecooking.com/pressure-cooker-buying-guide/)

</comment><comment><USER69> One thing I'll say — it doesn't just make things faster. It makes things so much tastier. Any stewing or braising dish gets done much quicker, and the meat retains so much more moisture while still getting its connective tissues broken down.

I have never failed to make a tasty meal in mine.

</comment><comment><USER70> > _the official Instant Pot Facebook group_

Well, that's a potentially clickbaity-sounding headline justified!

</comment><comment><USER71> Some enterprising Hacker News-type should source/market a nice sealable silicone lid for the Instant Pot pot. So weird that the company doesn't sell them. I'd buy 3 for my 3 pots. Easy storage in the fridge, all in the same pot, then reheat tomorrow.

<comment><USER72> [https://www.amazon.com/Instant-Pot-Silicone-Cover- Models/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Instant-Pot-Silicone-Cover- Models/dp/B011HLNE1M)

this is the exact product you're asking for ("Creates an air-tight and water- tight seal on the Instant Pot stainless steel inner pot.")

<comment><USER71> That one appears to be an old model and is out of stock everywhere. And from the reviews, it does not seem to actually seal the lid of the pot. No better than the cutting board I currently place on top of the pot to "seal" the lid.

\- "Lid is too big, not even close to sealing."

\- "very loose fit"

\- "This cover just rests on top of the Instant Pot liner. I was expecting it to "snap" on, similar to Tupperware, or something. I'm very disappointed."

<comment><USER72> [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K082HI4?psc=1](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K082HI4?psc=1)

some reviews complain of fit, but a lot more say it's perfect. YMMV of course.

<comment><USER71> Good find; I don't think that product existed a couple months ago when I was looking. Purchased and fingers crossed that it snaps on tight!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Sorry, I just don't buy that these things can never explode, since defects in manufacturing and design do happen. The potential for exploding in my cookware is just not worth the risk when I can use conventional pots and pans that don't have this risk.

</comment><comment><USER36> The thing is terrific and I too have recommended it to anyone who will listen. I just hope they keep their quality control standards high as the popularity increases.

It's a huge money/time saver. I think it's already paid for itself for me as a yogurt maker.

</comment><comment><USER74> My instant pot was my second pressure cooker. The first was a cuisinart, which was a nightmare to use -- it wouldn't secure the pressure valve without.. encouragement.

I'd love to know what your favorite meal is to cook with the pot. Mine is chicken tagine.

<comment><USER75> I had the exact same experience. I gave up on pressure cooking after having the Cuisinart fail to seal way too many times.

It defeats the purpose if you have to baby-sit and fiddle with the lid for an hour hoping to get a seal.

I have only had that issue once with the Instant Pot so far and it was solved with a quick re-seating of the sealing ring.

<comment><USER74> favorite recipe?

<comment><USER75> The "Perfected Pot Roast" recipe from the "Great Food Fast"[1] book by Bob Warden is absolutely amazing.

[1]: [http://a.co/441GESa](http://a.co/441GESa)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I just wish the Instant Pot (and really, all electric pressure cookers) had a fast-response PID controller so that it could keep 15 psi like a stovetop pressure cooker instead of maxing at 15 psi and averaging 10 psi.

</comment><comment><USER76> How does anything pick up a cult following? By being awesome.

I love that I can take frozen chicken and throw it in the pot, dump in like 2 other things, and presto less than half an hour later I have delicious taco meat.

</comment><comment><USER77> Neither my wife nor I have ever had the want or need for a pressure cooker, but if we ever do, this particular one might be worth looking into, given all the good things people have said about it.

I think we just don't mind if we have to wait for something to finish cooking; plus she likes "active cooking" \- the prep work, the attention to cooking, etc. I understand the desire for "set and forget" \- which is why I have my own such appliance (if you will) - a Traeger smoker. I got tired of always having to attend to my gas smoker (checking water levels, wood chips, temperature and gas settings). I just wanted to put the meat in, turn on the temp, and let it run for however many hours needed.

For other things, though, we like to use either a slow cooker, or for smaller amounts of things, our set of "ancient" Sunbeam/Rival Bean Pots (we typically find them at antique stores). Sure, either way takes hours to cook something, but we just set them, go to work, and come back home and they're done. We've never had an issue or reason to think this a problem (our house is worth more in insurance money, tbh), even using the 40-50 year old Bean Pots.

That said, what I wish could be sold/made available would be a modern and "safe" (I put that in quotes because one of these could never be perfectly safe) consumer-model pressure fryer. Think of combining a pressure-cooker with a deep-fat fryer (and realize just how dangerous that sounds). At one time (back in the 1970s, IIRC) a company did market such a product, but it didn't last on the market (not sure why - may have been a safety issue for all I know).

Basically, I want to have fried chicken like I can get at KFC and elsewhere (also known as "broasted" \- though that's a trademarked term, I think). It could probably be used for other fried foods as well. But I doubt we'll ever see one, because of the safety reasons and because fried foods aren't on the "high up" list of many people today (health reasons).

I've considered a commercial pressure fryer, but the fact that they require 220v (so I'd need a new outlet run), plus require a ton of oil ($$$) - <USER2> addition to all the other potential issues with a pressure fryer - <USER3> dissuaded me from that route (not to mention that they are pretty expensive to purchase).

Note: Whatever you do - don't try to pressure-fry in a regular pressure-cooker (I doubt the Instant Pot can handle it either) - the seals and such aren't designed for it, and you'll have burnination and other fun on your hands if you attempt it (at best).

</comment><comment><USER78> There was an AMA yesterday on Reddit by the founder of Camelcamelcamel. He said that the Instant Pot was tied with the Amazon Echo for having the most people tracking it. Pretty impressive.

</comment><comment><USER79> Is it basically a pressure cooker? What makes it "instant"?

<comment><USER80> The brand name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> When I was looking for a pressure cooker, I dropped into the subreddit r/pressurecooking and was surprised to see it was basically devoted to the Instant Pot!

</comment><comment><USER82> I already have a (great) rice cooker and a (not so great) slow cooker. Does the instant pot _actually_ replace those two appliances? Does it sous vide?

<comment><USER42> Does not do sous vide, but it certainly can replace your rice cooker and slow cooker. Only trouble is having only one appliance prevents you from cooking parallel (making curry _and_ the rice to serve it over, for instance, would be a problem).

<comment><USER83> Not purpose built for sous vide but the keep warm setting hovers ~70C which is nice for well cooked but still moist chicken. I believe the smart model has adjustable keep warm settings and is more fit to purpose for sous vide. Instant pot also sell an affordable immersion circulator.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Can I use the Instant Pot as an autoclave? I've been using a pressure cooker with a propane turkey burner for my tissue culture experiments.

</comment><comment><USER85> Never heard of it before this article came out.

Is this just a US/Canada thing? I remember my parents having an old-school pressure cooker 20 years or so ago.

</comment><comment><USER86> What is the difference between Instant Pot and similiar, cheaper devices? They look like one company makes them all.

</comment><comment><USER87> CamelCamelCamel founder said on his AMA that instant pot is the number one or 2 as the most monitoring product

</comment><comment><USER88> I seriously believed the article was about a pot smoking cook making instant meals.

</comment><comment><USER89> Aldi sells a clone for around $40. I have had one for some years.

</comment><comment><USER90> What will happens when american discover Thermomix and Cookeo ?

</comment><comment><USER91> I see so many articles like these. Honestly they all read like one of those pages that is advertised at the bottom of a CNN article.

<comment><USER92> After reading 'add HN to cart' I really wonder why this is #1

<comment><USER93> I was heartened by how poorly "add hn to cart" would actually do on this site. Most of those articles are instantly killed by various filters. Maybe I should go back and have another read through the comments, but that was my takeaway and also something I've noticed when browsing /new.

That said, it doesn't surprise me to see this at the top of HN. It is a geeky cooking tool with a cult following. I'm certainly intrigued.

<comment><USER92> Coincidentally we joked about the name ("pot") in both my jobs.

It's featured on an endcap and does not sell one bit. This was a surprise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> I thought it was a pressure cooker turned into cannabinoid extracting machine ...

</comment><comment><USER95> Lots and lots of marketing?

</comment><comment><USER96> I didn't think the BBC did advertising.

<comment><USER97> It's a gray area - where do you draw the line between reporting on a cult and advertising a product? Is [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs- trending-39158975](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39158975) an advert for that site? Is [http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170303-we-should-thank- bu...](http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170303-we-should-thank-buffy-for- todays-golden-age-of-television) an advert for Buffy? Is [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39188826](http://www.bbc.com/news/world- asia-39188826) an advert for the arms industry?

<comment><USER98> I got a full screen ad that couldn't be closed when trying to visit the link in Firefox for Android.

<comment><USER85> Do you live outside the UK?

The BBC is publicly funded, visitors to BBC news from outside the UK will get served ads.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


3D food printing that allows u to DIY your dessert - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/8a8f0d722e91?source=linkShare-9c80f7b19ebc-1510417206 <comment><USER2> All desserts can be DIY. You just make them for yourself instead of someone else.</comment>


Revealed: divorce software error to hit thousands of settlements - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/dec/17/revealed-divorce-software-error-to-hit-thousands-of-settlements <comment><AUTHOR> No one thought to check the results, there was no gratitude for the person who found the bug.

Mention also was not made of software testing.</comment>


ZzFXM – A tiny JavaScript music system - <AUTHOR> https://keithclark.github.io/ZzFXM/ <comment><USER2> How do you do arpeggiation or tremolo?

<comment><USER3> Well, arpeggiation is just a sequence of notes, no special handling necessary.

<comment><USER4> Same for tremolo technically. It's just repeating the same note very fast. Unless you mean the perverted definition which means _vibrato_ ; That's a different question.</comment></comment></comment>


Best Buy feels Amazon squeeze, to close 50 big-box stores - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57406388-92/best-buy-feels-amazon-squeeze-to-close-50-big-box-stores/ <comment><USER2> An interesting comment from Reddit:

"Roughly 5-7 years ago Best Buy was competing with another company called.. Circuit City. One of the ways they were making sure they kept market share was whenever Circuit City was putting in a bid to open a store somewhere, Best Buy would bid higher and put a store in that exact same location. This caused Best Buy to open a lot of stores that were close to other Best Buy's (roughly 3-6 miles in some cases), but they just wanted to make sure Circuit City didn't get market share.

Fast forward to now, the leases on those stores ending and Best Buy is not renewing them. The store isn't very profitable as it could be because there is another one not too far down the road.

What that article also fails to mention is Best Buy is also going to open an additional 100 stores, two different types (Mobile stores in malls and community stores in smaller markets). Both of these types of stores are much smaller, cost less to run but typically are very profitable due to cell phone sales.

Am I a Best Buy employee? Obviously yes. Do I speak for the company? Nope. Do I plan on working here the rest of my life? Of course not. Just trying to be a bit more accurate than the chicken little the sky is falling that is mentioned in this article is all."

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/rj92n/the_slow_d...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/rj92n/the_slow_death_of_best_buy_has_begun/c46af5a)

</comment><comment><USER3> I recently tried to buy a cable from their store the other day. They had the cable on their website for $14 dollars (Amazon had it for $6) and I thought to myself, "Well that's not terrible, I'd rather have it today, it is worth the premium." When I got to the store, the best price for the cable, was $30 and the staff said the $14 cable I wanted was online only (it was not easily apparent from their site). Even after driving to the store, I decided I can wait two days and get it for $6 bucks from Amazon.

<comment><USER4> Big Lots is a better place to go to get a HDMI cable (and a few other cables as well) than Best Buy. I'm not sure which company this says more about, really.

I find the markup on cables at BB to be very frustrating. Why can I get a cable shipped all the way across the country for less than 1/8th the price of a BB cable?

<comment><USER5> Best Buy's historical strategy has been to make profits from accessories like cables. But they have been doing it wrong in the past 5 years. They should be using these accessories to drive foot traffic.

Best Buy can sell products or services. They obviously cant sell products (for a profit), and their services kind of suck. But they need to do one or the other, and they need to do it great. Amazon and company has them beat on selling products. They need to focus all their energy on selling services.

Best Buy's current strategy is borrowed time. A shame the employees get to suffer through shitty (mis)management like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Best Buy is not going out of business because Amazon is good. Best Buy is going out of business because Best Buy sucks. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't live near a Fry's.

<comment><USER7> So true. I recall when their stores opened. They were clean, the shelves were stocked with relevant products, and display units functioned.

Now it's just a dirty pile of what's left from last Christmas and display units that are un-powered or broken.

Don't get me started on their staff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Went to a physical big box store (it was a future shop, same difference).

Had to wait 10 minutes for service because one employee was selling the other employee an ipad.

When I finally got an employee's attention, they didn't have my part (a USB->SATA adapter), they acted like I was inconveniencing them, and I noticed for parts they did have they were charging a ridiculous amount. Standard 3-prong power cable for more than $25 ridiculous.

They have some intrinsic advantages to the web store (real salespeople interaction, physical handling of goods) but with the net experience being so negative they are not leveraging these advantages well enough to compete with the speed and ease of online shopping.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is actually quite sad to me. As much as I complained about Circuit City and Best Buy with their pushy salesmen and incredibly high prices, there's always a benefit to being able to go to a store and see what you're about to buy. You can't tell the build quality of a laptop by reading an Amazon description. You can't tell the picture quality of a screen by the customer reviews. You can't do side-by-side comparisons with a product in each hand.

I really like the Sears model. My hometown wasn't big enough to have its own Sears store, but they had a catalog front-end, where they stocked one unit of their best selling products so people could see them in person. If you liked it, they would order one to be shipped to you or to their store, and you could pick it up. We need tech stores like this, an Amazon front-end.

<comment><USER10> It was a shame when Circuit City went under. However, is there anyone on the planet not affiliated with Best Buy who wouldn't love to see them go bankrupt?

I'm all rose-coloured glasses and nostalgia when it comes to dying brick-and- mortar stores, but let's not pretend that Best Buy isn't a silly place.

<comment><USER9> I'm all for Best Buy and Circuit City going under. I just lament that there is no good brick and mortar.

<comment><USER11> I am so torn as well. CC and BB hardly did anything to distance themselves from online vendors. Their prices suck, services suck, and they don't offer enough variety and/or higher end items.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So, Best Buy still exists for some combination of two reasons:

1\. You can get your stuff RIGHT NOW 2\. You supposedly can get customized help/advice

What can other companies do to hasten Best Buy's death? Amazon seems to be piecing together a distribution network for same day/next day delivery in dense urban markets (at least, as a Prime member shipping to Chicago, I was offered some sort of courier delivery for $4). Perhaps Walgreens, etc. could up their game and offer an intelligently stocked selection of need-it-now things like cables? They're open 24/7 in most markets and could probably deal with "only" a 100% mark-up. Certainly, the immediacy of purchasing a TV from Best Buy is important to some, but I suspect small accessories account for the majority of purchases which, if a day's lag time had not been an issue, would have been made online instead.

The help/advice need seems like a more interesting niche for start-ups. Hunch.com seems like the right sort of idea if applied to Amazon's offerings. Let's say my friend suggests that we do a Skype video chat. While I personally can read through product specifications, know various companies' reputations for providing driver support over time, etc., my parents would be lost. A good salesperson asks questions about a customer's needs which help filter down a huge set of potential products down to just a few. Imagine paying a trusted, independent, and knowledgeable person $10 for a ten minute chat along with an interactive Amazon browsing session. People like my parents would be delighted. Heck, I'd use such a service if I was shopping for, say, a kitchen faucet.

What else can be done?

</comment><comment><USER13> of course they are.

With Best Buy, you have to go get in your car, drive 7 miles to the store, browse for 20 minutes to find what you are looking for, then drive 7 miles back. So on top of $4 you probably spend on gas, you end up wasting an hour of your day just to get something.

With Amazon, you get the itch to get something, do a quick search, add it to the cart, and get it shipped + you can read reviews to find out if the item sucks.

And of course Amazon will tend to have lower prices...and with Prime, you'll have it very quick.

The only thing you'd go to Best Buy for, is if you have an emergency, and need something asap...and there aren't a lot of items that you can't wait a day for to avoid wasting an hour at the store

</comment><comment><USER12> The problem with Best Buy selling cables for absurd mark-up levels is that they're trading away brand equity for a few dollars today. How does someone feel if, after buying a cable at Best Buy, he later sees the same cable for sale elsewhere for 1/4 the price? Will he be so willing to go to Best Buy in the future? Will he trust the salesperson's recommendations if he does indeed enter the store again? Traditional accounting methods don't assess the change in value of a company's brand quarter-over-quarter, but they sure do represent the seemingly high profit margins of cables. So, what's a poor executive to do?

</comment><comment><USER14> Plea HN: When you go to Best Buy don't go out and buy from Amazon! "Is Best Buy becoming a showroom for online retailers like Amazon?", well, for most people yes, but what if BB bankrupts, which showroom will you go?

I think their plan sounds good, especially the employer compensation bit. BB's worst problem is their clueless employees. Whenever I go there, either I can't find anyone or else I get surprised looks to basic questions. They seemed bored, etc. I think BB execs should take a stroll to the Apple store and look at the customer-employee interaction there.

<comment><USER15> I often find myself doing the showroom thing with BB and traditional bookstores - but I typically do not go to the brick and mortar store on purpose to look at stuff. I am usually out with friends or visiting other stores (say, at a mall) and happen to go in. So if BB bankrupts, I am not going to feel particularly affected, because I usually go direct to Amazon anyway. (Prime helps with that motivation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting - this article blames Amazon, another blamed the iPad squeezing BB's margins. I say the blame lies with the clueless way these stores have been run for years. thehigherlife's anecdote about trying to buy a cable is a good example. Consider the insane irony of the name "Best Buy" in the context of that story.</comment>


Alexandra Elbakyan Closed Sci-Hub for Russian Users - <AUTHOR> Today Alexandra Elbakyan closed Sci-Hub for Russian users. Russian users currently see Alexandra's note explaining her reasons for shutting it down in Russia instead of Sci-Hub main page. The reasons cite: 2 years of continued harassment of Alexandra on the Russian-speaking Internet. Inappropriate, abusive behavior of Russian scientists in regards to Alexandra, including reporting her as 'crazy', and naming a parasitic insect in her honor. Some of these 'scientists' occupy high-rank positions in the Russian Academy of Sciences and are very vocal and organized in their insults towards Alexandra. Meanwhile, people attacking her did not hesitate to proceed using Sci-Hub. Source: http://sci-hub.cc/ Relevant article in Russian: https://www.popmech.ru/science/news-385562-sayt-sci-hub-prekratil-rabotu-na-territorii-rossii/ <comment><USER2> I'm a completely uninvolved party, never even visited sci-hub.cc before.

The text which arguments the block (as read here: [https://polit_satira.d3.ru/osnovatelnitsa-saita-sci-hub- alek...](https://polit_satira.d3.ru/osnovatelnitsa-saita-sci-hub-aleksandra- elbakian-zablokirovala-ego-dlia-polzovatelei-iz-rf-1442399)), makes an impression that the person who wrote it is mentally really not quite well. For instance, the text start "neutrally" describing situation around Alexandra, referring to her in third person and in the middle switches to first person, direct insults and invective. Signed by herself. The text is not healthy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, while the text might not be well thought out and calculated, given what comments and level of disrespect she was facing online (maybe offline as well), the tone of this text is not that surprising. As for mental health of the author, we have 0 info about it and we are not doctors to speculate.

<comment><USER2> It's not just this text (which for a russian reader makes very troubling impression). There are many reports of further inadequate behaviour of Alexandra. This might be a result of online pressure, but in any case situation around Sci-Hub does not make a healthy impression at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah there are many reports like this, but I think Alexandra behaves quite ok in the given circumstances. Actually these reports of her "inadequate" behavior (mostly by people who intentionally blackmail her and behave no better themselves) is what she protests against as she suspects that it is an organized attempt to harm her reputation and project, and it is very likely that it really is. Her communication style is often harsh, and some of her views are quite unusual, but this is not a crime and definitely not enough to label someone insane or treat like she is treated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "to remove all barriers in the way of science" they say...

<comment><AUTHOR> ..but not for those who belittles and represses science. I guess she tries to influence malicious political practices and public opinions protesting against them this way.</comment></comment>


So You Want to Hire an Intern? - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.gowalla.com/2011/10/21/interns/

<comment><USER2> I had the privilege of mentoring our summer intern and I was blown away by how quickly he learned.

He picked up Perl in a week, learned enough about Anova and R-squared analysis to create a very useful data parser and statistics package.

He was an electrical engineer who has taken one programming class in school.

Made me rethink our training gestation period for new hires.

<comment><AUTHOR> thats great! i would be interested in some lessons learned form the experience.</comment></comment>


AT&T's 1993 "You Will" Ads (excellent foresight) [vid] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZb0avfQme8

<comment><USER2> A couple of themes emerge:

1\. The stuff they predicted using dedicated technologies (video pay phones, etc.) ended up being built on top of general purpose platforms (laptops). The fax-from-the-beach thing is another example, although one would just send an email today.

2\. AT&T tended to predict evolutionary change when more profound change actually happened. Payphones, faxes, etc. Perhaps marketers realized that they had to attach the wow factor to something concrete that everybody already understood.

What they didn't predict (or at least tell us about) was that voice would become just another service on a general network (Skype). I guess this has only partially happened, but it's clearly the endgame.</comment>


Why I left my liberal London tribe - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/39a0867a-0974-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43 <comment><USER2> Subscription only.

<comment><USER3> Arrive via the 'web' link under the HN title</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How often do you visit HN? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I am new to HN and it is already becoming addictive. I think I am going to visit it at least once everyday, if not every hour.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm subscribed to the RSS feed, so I check it every morning.</comment>


Browsers need a "Return without resending" option... - <AUTHOR>

This is just a pet peeve of mine.
I get pretty annoyed when I can't hit my back button or refresh a page without resending post data (if post data was previously submitted of course).
The only two options have always been "Resend" or "Cancel"... and a lot of the time I just want to get back to that page without resending the POST data.  I do realize that sometimes the content of the page is dependent on that data but 9 times out of 10, it's not.
It seems that anytime I want to return to the page, I have to manually re-enter the URL or select a few steps back into my history.
Anyone know why the only options are "Resend" and "Cancel"? <comment><USER2> get in.

the pattern is called redirect after post. It doesn't require browser changes it requires web developers to add 1 line of code.

<comment><AUTHOR> But what if I do like the option of being able to resend the data?

Browsers should include 3 options with this alert:

Resend, Don't Resend, & Cancel

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For instance, the current #2 link on HN leads to:

[http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/02/11/bing-smacks- googl...](http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/02/11/bing-smacks-google-in- new-usability-test/)

And if you wait a few seconds and hit your back button to return to HN, the "Resend/Cancel" window pops up (unexpectedly!)... I find it pretty annoying that I suddenly have to click it to do anything else.</comment>


Yahoo seeking patent windfall from Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/yahoo-seeking-patent-windfall-from-facebook-20120229-1u1mi.html

<comment><USER2> Software patents are counterproductive.</comment>


What Does It Feel Like To Be The CEO Of A Startup? - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/06/06/what-does-it-feel-like-to-be-the-ceo-of-a-startup/

<comment><USER2> This is really well-written, but I guess I don't understand why there is so much discussion of this topic.

Like most things in life, startups have good moments & bad ones. I co-founded a tech company and there are sleepless night as alluded to in this post (when the hardware fails or we have a big customer pitch) and then there are awesome moments like when we find someone amazing to join the team or we kick Dow Jones' ass (one of our competitors). And ultimately, I guess I'll keep doing this as long as the good moments outweigh the bad ones.

But there seems to be a constant barrage of articles from startup founders romanticizing the process of starting up or which just seem to be full of angst and which try to highlight how hard founder lives are and how we struggle against all odds to make it against powers that be (whatever they are).

Perhaps its cathartic to write all this stuff, but based on the articles and comments I read about how hard it is to get financing, how investors might screw you, how hard it is to hire, how hard it is to gain customers and then ultimately how terrible it is to be acquired (that was a new one from yday), it just seems we founders (or some of us) waste a lot of time navel-gazing vs. just building our business and getting out of startup phase (which is what I imagine we all want to do).

So I guess I am genuinely curious what is the benefit of these posts?

</rant>

</comment><comment><USER3> As if this speaks for all start-ups. Look, if you don't value time away from business or if you ascribe significant meaning to the results of an A/B test, you should sit down and think very hard about the world around you.

With regard to this specific article: this guy needs to realize that there's many, many fascinating aspects of life outside of the data entry business.

</comment><comment><USER4> IMHO the response here is a much more accurate description:

[http://siberianfruit.com/post/24290966995/startup-ceos- stop-...](http://siberianfruit.com/post/24290966995/startup-ceos-stop-acting- like-victims)

<comment><USER5> Disagree. Love what I do but it's not all puppies and lollipops. Things can (and do) go wrong on a regular basis and you have to learn how to deal with that reality.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A work history publishing service - <AUTHOR> https://worklog.us/ <comment><USER2> Okay, so what do some examples look like?</comment>


Study: College Students Not Learning Much - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504744_162-20028739-10391703.html

<comment><USER2> I actually took part in this study. A few notes:

1\. The exam was supposed to be administered 3 times, Freshman, Sophomore, and Senior years. I took it my Freshman and Senior years.

2\. The exam was not a normal exam. I won't say it was pointless, it definitely measured something, but it's hard to say exactly what. Imagine you have to make an exam to measure "learning" and this thing was about as close as you could come to getting one. But that's still far off the mark.

3\. The sample was not representative. Taking the exam was opt-in, and the college put forth a variety of incentives to get people to take the exams. Despite this, they definitely had a high drop off between sign-up-for- everything freshmen and I'm way too busy to spend three hours taking another exam seniors.

I believe there were schools where it was not opt-in, but even so, I can't imagine any of the students taking this exam had grades riding on their performance. And given that it was a single exam, it was dependent on the students' state of mind on the particular day they took the exam. Three data points per person, over four years. It's hard to draw any conclusions from this data.

<comment><USER3> Could you elaborate on what the exam was like?

<comment><USER2> It was a series of reading comprehension problem-solving problems with short answer response.

One bit was five documents relating to an environmental issue in a small town. The exam asked the student to analyze the documents, looking for biases the sources may have and flaws in their reasoning.

It did a good job of measuring ability to synthesize and analyze sources, but it definitely would be harder to recognize more focused improvements in reasoning ability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One problem is there is no incentive on the part of the college to teach much. I've long advocated that we need output measures for colleges. Colleges are rated on their input measures -- how competitive is it to get into the school. But no measure of how effective they are at teaching.

As of today no one can really say where (on average) you'll learn more/better -- at Harvard or Ohio State. All we know is that Harvard is more difficult to get into. I find that crazy that this is still the state of higher ed.

<comment><USER5> I think 80% of modern college value-added is signalling. Employers should really just accept SAT scores directly, although I'm not sure if that's legal. It would certainly be cheaper.

<comment><USER6> Why isn't it legal, out of curiosity? I get to see quite a few CVs that include the rank the applicant got in the IIT-JEE exam (for most purposes, I find that to be a rather useless metric.)

<comment> barry-cotter Griggs vs. Duke Power Company

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.#Judgme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.#Judgment)

Since the SAT[1] is a glorified IQ test[2] the rankings from high to low by population group go Ashkenazi Jews >> East Asians >> Caucasian >> Blacks.

The Disparate Impact legal doctrine[3] means that unless you can show business _necessity_ any test that reliably discriminates between protected classes[4] is automatically illegal.

The strength of this argument is weakened by the fact that TTBOMK no equivalent law exists in the rest of the Anglosphere.

[1]And the LSAT, MSAT, GRE, GMAT etc.

[2]This isn't completely accurate for those tests that measure concrete knowledge like the MCAT, but the correlation is still pretty high

[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_Impact>

[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class>

<comment><USER7> _Since the SAT[1] is a glorified IQ test[2]_

The SAT is a wonderful test for memorization. Also how much time you spent studying, almost as if its a... _scholastic_ test.

It it's relationship to IQ is _extremely_ vague.

<comment> barry-cotter <http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/6/373.abstract>

_This research established the relationship between SAT and g, as well as the appropriateness of the SAT as a measure of g, and examined the SAT as a premorbid measure of intelligence._

In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity).

 _Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). These studies indicate that the SAT is mainly a test of g._

We provide equations for converting SAT scores to estimated IQs; such conversion could be useful for estimating premorbid IQ or conducting individual difference research with college students.

<comment><USER7> I still recall a very brief and elegant point my pedagogy professor made by giving all of his students an IQ test.

The test just happened to test on material none of had ever studied, for example how to clean offal. This was a real test which people with the correct experience had scored highly on. Us college students on the other hand, were deemed barely functional by the same test.

The IQ test is not contrived but it does rely on _learned_ knowledge to be able to test. So the IQ test itself is not a very good test of intelligence, _especially_ in the case where the tool (lets say language) it's using to test IQ is lacking in say non-native speakers.

But to get back to the SAT test, my East Asian immigrant high-school friends with decent English - bad SAT scores. Two years later with greatly improved English, same people - great SAT scores. And I am talking about all of the SAT, including the math part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe the problem is not the college, but the slacker kids who skim by with the bare minimum effort.

I'm always amused when the kids who used to tease me for taking college seriously post Facebook statuses like, "omg y cant i get a job?!?!"

<comment><USER9> "Them darn kids aint learnin cuz they aint tryin!"

Let's consider the assumption that between 36% and 45% of all undergrad students are slackers. Sure, a bunch of students aren't learning because they are slackers, but why there are SO MANY of them? Are there more slackers as a percentage of the population than in the past? Is the internet/cell- phone/facebook era changing the mentality of students to be more focused on the short term easiest/best solution? Or maybe the percent of slackers in the general populace is the same, but a much larger percentage of secondary students go on to undergrad. Well, why are so many more going on in school, especially those that are slackers? Parental/societal pressures might suggest that going to college is just "what you do" after high school. Or maybe peer pressure makes students continue in through school because their peers expect it of them. Perhaps it is sheer inertia that is the driving force; our slackers do whatever is the most expedient at the moment, so when the time comes they'd rather go to a generic college with an undecided major than to go and do something.

Or, (and I like this theory the most), students feel a need, from an economical perspective, to get a degree in order to get a job. And then they go to school, with the singular goal of earning that piece of paper so they can get a job. At this point, "slacker" has been forced into the role by going to school just to be able to get a job afterwards. It's a means to an end, and incidental value is just that. At this point, it isn't just the college's fault, but the general expectations of employers. Why do you require a college degree? Is knowing the theory essential to doing the work or save a substantial amount of training or ramp-up time?

<comment><USER10> Universities don't do much to encourage students to work hard.

You'll pass no matter what, and in many places can get an A by just cramming for the final. Worse, many classes adjust grading standards based on how students are doing, so anyone who studies hard is _betraying_ their classmates.

Fraternities are given official support while study groups are left to fend for themselves (not that much support is needed, but it would be a nice gesture). A football team that wins a championship can expect official schoolwide celebration, which no intellectual achievement would produce.

People are influenced by social pressure. Children are especially influenced. And the pressures aren't really pushing toward learning.

(A secondary conclusion is that if you want to learn a lot at college, your first act should be to find a network of friends who _do_ value learning.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 1) The study was done at the end of their sophmore year. 200 level course are not that difficult.

2) The study asked if students had a class required 20 pages of writing, or 40 pages of reading. Especially in engineering, this is often just not practical. In a senior level class, we only had ~20 pages of reading a week, but we spent countless hours building an RTOS from the ground up. That time was so much more effective than reading a book. As far as writing goes, I haven't written a paper in a long time, but multiple 60 hour coding projects are pretty common throughout a semester.

<comment><USER9> 1) "After four years, 36 percent of students did not demonstrate significant improvement, compared to 45 percent after two." Thats 36% of students who spent four years without improving what the study authors deem as important cognitive abilities. Perhaps they learned all of their material sufficiently well to do XXX, but the study says they aren't, in a generalist sense, any smarter.

2) I can't tell from the article whether these statistics were actually influential in determining the students' scores on the test. I totally agree that this doesn't translate well between different majors. If the scores were affected by answering this question or the one about study habits or probably a number of others, then I don't really see the point of the study. They started from some sort of "if people take easier* classes, then they aren't as intelligent" baseline and then showed that people take easier* classes...

* "easier," by their definition, has something to do with writing X pages or reading Y pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm uncomfortable with how easily correlations are taken as causations. Will longer assignments 'teach' better? Or, is it that the students who are more willing to learn are also more willing to do longer assignments?

</comment><comment><USER13> _The findings also will likely spark a debate over what helps and hurts students learn. To sum up, it's good to lead a monk's existence: Students who study alone and have heavier reading and writing loads do well._

You can "lead a monk's existence" by yourself, without paying a college $40-50k per 30-week year. Hit the books, learn as much as you can, then go out into the real world and make things happen.

It kills me that education and credentialing are so tightly bound together in popular perception. Learning is about what happens in your head, not necessarily what happens in a classroom.

I'm kicking around an idea of an alternative credential for entrepreneurs, which would legally certify you've operated a real business at a certain profit level for a certain period of time. If you want to seek employment when you're done, most employers would recognize that you have economically valuable skills - above and beyond those of college graduates.

If the business takes off, you won't care about the credential... which is a good thing. The amount you'd learn pursuing such a credential would put most college programs to shame.

<comment><USER14> "See the sad thing about a guy like you is in fifty years you'll start doin' some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up that there are two certainties in life: one, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library"

-Matt Damon, Good Will Hunting

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a problem with the metrics they use:

20 pages of writing, or 40 pages of reading

They are going on the assumption that increased pages of writing and increased pages of reading is a metric for amount learned.

There are so many lurking variables at play here. The attribution of cause and effect here to these arbitrary variables is an over simplification fallacy of what's really going on and why.

<comment><USER16> Also, 20 pages of, say, Spivak's Calculus is simply more than , say, 20 pages of Michel de Montaigne essays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For some people, college is truly a joke of an academic experience.

I worked a couple of on-campus jobs at the school I attended. One of those jobs was in the department of Recreation Administration. I couldn't believe it was a major that people paid money to go to school and study. I couldn't believe the tests I photocopied were real - I could easily pass them, and what I didn't know was obviously information easily obtained from a minimal amount of reading of the textbooks.

It was comical, really, although the parents paying the same tuition for that that my parents paid for my CompSci education shouldn't find it funny. It seems to me like there are an increasing number of "paths of low resistance" through college.

</comment><comment><USER18> The problem isn't that college-aged kids are performing poorly. The problem is that we've raised kids in an educational system that is dying and underfunded at the early levels. We cut physical education, art, music, cancel recess, and expect kids kids to grow up fine while learning subpar English and Maths. Universities have to lower their standards to help provide a job market for these children with under-developed fundamentals.

</comment><comment><USER19> These people are idiots. 2300 college students interviewed... Think about that for 1 minute. That's a sample of less then 10% the size of my university. There are hundreds or even thousands of schools with over 10,000 students.

Where has this sample been taken? What colleges? How diverse was the population? Socio-economic statuses? These are all big concerns I have with this statistic. Also, what are they measuring? English? Maths? Sciences?

With all the high school emphasis on getting into college, I would not expect a serious improvement in the maths and English. If it's looking at general stuff, then yes, I would not expect a substantial shift, if we're talking about fields and careers then this is shocking data.

Given all that. I am a college junior, I have learned so much about math (calculus), science, computer science and how to solve problems. More so then I ever could have dreamed. College has opened me up to many new learning opportunities.

While the fault could be at the college, more then likely; however, it's on the student, not the school.

<comment><USER20> > These people are idiots. 2300 college students interviewed... Think about > that for 1 minute.

Common sense is no substitute for an intro stats class. 2300 is plenty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> People just aren't taking the right kind of classes. A math class which is a higher level than anything you have taken before is sure to teach you something. A writing class which is higher level than anything you have taken before (not as easy to measure, this is more due to a better quality instructor) is sure to teach you something. Along with a lot of writing is usually paired up with a lot of reading, which is also sure to teach you something. Outside of those areas...

It's the three R's; readin, ritten, rithmatic. Unfortunately, a lot of programs don't require those areas. People who aren't heavy into those areas in college should probably be going to a vocational school rather than a university.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is not taking a class that requires you to write 20 pages or read 40 pages within the last semester an issue?

I find that, as people in technical majors progress through the years, they take less and less humanities and more and more major specific classes.

It might be worrying if math majors didn't take a class that requires problem sets in the last semester. Or english majors didn't take classes that required writing. But to suggest that students aren't learning because they aren't taking courses relevant to their major is a biased assertion.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well since critical thinking and "complex reasoning" are impossible to measure on a standardized test, the entire article is pretty much pointless. I.E. the media needs to stop acting like the important effects of education can be measured easily and en masse and therefore reported on in their articles.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't agree with the approach this article uses to gauge learning.

For one thing, it completely puts down science and math courses. In a multivariable calc class, we didn't have reading or writing (though I did have more than 40 pages of homework!)

Second, it's a bit arbitrary.

</comment><comment><USER25> I know that for my undergrad, college seemed to be an extension of high school- and both the slackers and the non-slackers went to college. Now that I am in grad school, I don't notice many, if any, slackers.

Does anyone have any similar stories?

<comment><USER26> I don't know the actual statistics, but I heard that nearly everyone from my high school went to college after graduating. Even though I got good grades, I was actually a bit of a slacker myself in high school; mostly because I did a lot of extra curricular activities (ice/roller hockey, drumline, cello, studied Japanese and computer stuff). However, I heard somewhere that about 30% of the kids from my high school would drop out from college in their first two years. This seems about right based on what I saw on Facebook. Some of them were slackers, some of them must have had no interest in college and probably shouldn't have bothered going.

Anyway, I'm in grad school now, and I haven't noticed many slackers (maybe a grad student taking a weekend off?). Although, I didn't really notice many slackers in college either. That may be because I went to a research-focused University to study engineering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> College rocked my world, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. You get out what you put in.

<comment><USER27> This. And the fact that lots of people go to college who aren't mature enough to know that. Or they go because their parents make them and so they party and dick around. The reality is that many kids who go to college --- shouldn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think if you "compare and contrast" how you learned $x (something you learned outside of school), and how subjects are taught in college, that might lead to some insight.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm not impressed that this article couldn't even make it ten words without making a major error.

Especially given the headline.

</comment><comment><USER30> College isn't about learning, it's about developing intellectually.

<comment> barry-cotter I challenge you to develop that statement, so that I know what you meant to say rather than imputing it. An uncharitable interpretation would be that college could be taught with no resources beyond those available at secondary school, since in a number of fields it would be quite possible to use the secondary school intellectual tools to construct your own knowledge, e.g. 30 motivated Math students might be able to rederive up to Calculus II or III given four years to do it.

<comment><USER30> At college, you develop yourself intellectually, through interaction with peers, professors, understanding complex material, finding the fundamental insights that underly your field, building an maintaining a network, developing your skill as a leader and/or a team player, learning how to read and write at a sophisticated level, and how to go beyond these things. Your brain is a living organ that needs training like a muscle, but it is incomparably more complex than any other part of your body. You need to run with the best to be able to follow their footsteps, to foster the techniques and gain the insights that will lead you into a wealthy, interesting and happy life and perhaps one that can change the world. You don't need to be aware of all of this when you're in it, it happens in the ingenious way in which college has developed itself, even if you drop out.

I don't know which philosopher is to blame for the idea that a brain is some kind of black box and school is there to put knowledge in it, but I'd send him back to college.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> declining quality and costs rising faster than inflation. hmmm, I wonder what entity could be responsible for distorting yet another industry.</comment>


Secret to the Uber Economy Is Wealth Inequality - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/312537/the-secret-to-the-uber-economy-is-wealth-inequality/ <comment><USER3> > With nothing more technologically advanced than a phone, you can arrange to > have delivered to your doorstep, often in less than an hour, takeaway food, > your weekly groceries, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs (over-the-counter, > prescription, proscribed), books, newspapers, a dozen eggs, half a dozen > eggs, a single egg. I once had a single bottle of Coke sent to my home at > the same price I would have paid had I gone to shop myself.

I never understand these anti-uber rants. The author points out the ubiquitous nature of on-demand services, their affordability and convenience. He even admits that the market has to be large enough to warrant such a service. And then he goes on about how this is fueled by inequality when I see it as doing the opposite, providing services to large portions of the US that were never able to indulge in such conveniences.

> Another distinction, just as telling, lies in the opportunities the local > economy affords to the army of on-demand delivery people it supports. In > Mumbai, the man who delivers a bottle of rum to my doorstep can learn the > ins and outs of the booze business from spending his days in a liquor store. > If he scrapes together enough capital, he may one day be able to open his > own shop and hire his own delivery boys.

This to me just romanticizes manual labor. I'm not sure how the author defines "local economy", but he provides no rationale why someone working for a "local" business would be better off in the long run than someone working for an Uber-like business. My impression of on-demand services is they allow for flexibility in hours as well as utilization of capital (e.g. a car).

The fact is that growth mainly occurs through specialization and trade. I'm sure if the author were writing 100 years ago, he would bemoan the fact that fewer people are making their own clothing. Micro-services such as cabs, laundry, delivery, cleaning, etc, are the natural extension of a wealthy society.

<comment><USER4> Those arguments is pretty similar to the candle industry extinction. Some may argue that electricity has killed thousands of jobs in the candle industry, including those who had to light the candles every night in the streets.

In Sao Paulo, the largest city in Brazil, is facing a boom in the Uber offer. Many people who used to drive particular car are selling them and using Uber has main transportation. This is particular good for the traffic and a good alternative in a city where there is a lack of Subway lines.

<comment><USER5> And bad for Uber drivers that works 14 hours/day, 6 days a week to make less than 1k USD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The way in which this Uber stuff is about wealth inequality is that there is no "Uber for getting on your feet after serving time for a felony" or an "Uber for teaching high school kids how to get on a path to a good job" but there are three "Uber for cupcakes"'s.

There's nothing wrong with Uber for cupcakes[1], and people can argue that we should start there because it's just easier to make money off of rich people. But what's the plan for Uberizing the stuff poor people need? Is there one? I don't accept that it's just too hard. Margins are margins.

[1] I have no idea whether there is an Uber for cupcakes

<comment><USER7> There is. It is called Postmates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I actually noticed something when I was living in Argentina, South America (I'm from the US). It was more common for people to have maids, nannies, etc, than in the US. Not super rich people either, just upper middle class people. It made me wonder if there was some kind of "maid index" \- an indicator of the percentage of people who have a maid. I suspect it could be used as some kind of indicator for wealth equality (or inequality).

<comment><USER9> gini coefficient is probably pretty close to what you are looking for. it shows the delate in inqequality between high and low earners in [country/region]. haven't looked at that stuff for a while but, traditionally, much of S America had high gini coefficents

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty much every labor transaction is based on "wealth inequality" \- the person paying has money, the person doing the work wants that money. Programming pays better than driving, but the principle is the same. I certainly wouldn't be working on _your_ project if I was independently wealthy...

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't know what to say. My ex-roommate used to be a door to door salesman for comcast contractor, selling comcast's services on commission. He gave up that gig, as it was not paying enough to live in Hayward, CA.

Now he drives for Uber, uses his Scion xb 2006 car, makes around $6k a month. Yes, he needs to deduct expenses like gas, insurance, etc. But he is happy even after those expenses.

Uber has destroyed the taxi industry. And it has also made easy for others to become Uber drivers. So, one group has lost, another group has won.

Taxi industry has gone hitech; so, the companies like Uber get 100 multiples for their stock prices, if they go IPO. Even if Taxi industry had gone IPO 20 years ago, it would not have helped taxi drivers.

The losers are those who bought SF taxi permits, and those who used to drive for yellowcab, but can't become Uber drivers.

Inequality exists as long as greed exists.

<comment><USER12> Inequality is an unavoidable consequence of economic growth. Economic growth always destroys incumbent industries and benefits new upstarts. It is up to government to provide a set of transfers that allows a more equal distribution of the gains and loses from economic growth.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What Uber did is reduce the overhead of being the middleman. Which is what lets these services expand to smaller markets.

The people who get screwed are the previous middlemen, not the worker bees. If anything, the job of middleman will be a race to the bottom where the next Uber find a way to do it a little cheaper (or take a little less profit to hit a larger scale).

</comment><comment><USER14> At least it is another work option. Flexible enough for students and people with a day job that want to supplement their main income.

That's the reality we live in. Some people have multiple jobs, some people have no benefits, some people work on a 100% commission basis and in slow months they need to continue to function. "Uber-style" jobs can help you work in a more flexible schedule.

But to be honest, I do not think that being an Uber driver full-time is a very good option. Then, I do not see Uber at the moment being at the same evil scale than Walmart, for instance... a company that has a anti-union training, anti-union team and standard operating procedures, and makes billions of dollars in revenue while having their entire workforce on welfare.

<comment><USER15> Their drivers (majority of the workforce) have no welfare to speak of. Wait until Uber becomes really big like 90s' Microsoft then you'd see the rest of the Walmart deeds. It's the expected inherent big Corp SOP, nothing new.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> According to the graphic linked in the article, Mumbai has a Gini of 35. That's not very high - it's comparable to Italy, Spain or Sierra Leone - <USER2> only marginally higher than India, France or Bosnia (33) as a whole.

It contradicts the author's thesis to note that a country with so _little_ inequality as India was (and still is) way ahead of the US (Gini 41) in terms of providing domestic services.

<comment><USER17> > It contradicts the author's thesis to note that a country with so little > inequality as India was (and still is) way ahead of the US (Gini 41) in > terms of providing domestic services.

Think of the Gini coefficient as a cumulated histogram of income. The actual values of high and low income are not represented in the Gini chart.

So India has less differential _in population_ than the US but the absolute value of max and min are much lower than the US's (actually the max in India is pretty big but the curve is quite steep).

Also the Gini coefficient is a single number, the geometric mean of the curve. The shape of the curve is quite different: India has a massive unemployment problem and a reasonably large middle class that can pay for service (income is low so the time value of money is low => hiring a servant is worth it).

I don't know what percentage of the median household income an Uber driver typically earns so it's hard to see if it is a good analogy or not. All the studies I've seen on this matter have been biased (high or low, depending on the point to be made) and have been methodologically suspect. It's not clear if it's even possible to calculate it since many / most Uber drivers enter and exit the "work force" casually based on available time and desired compensation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Isn't the takeaway here "the secret to getting people to do stuff for you that you don't really want to do is wealth inequality?"

I'm struggling to see why Uber is a particular example of evil, rather than say a restaurant or a nanny service.

</comment><comment><USER19> damn good article! thank u for the deep insight.</comment>


Why I left Google - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jessiedotjs/status/1162364434846822401 <comment><USER2> To save reading a twitter thread:

> When I joined Google, I fell in love with the company immediately. I was > excited to come to work, not just for the technical challenges, but because > I really felt I was making a difference and working for the good guys. >I > spent 20% of my week working on an app that helped people find lost loved > ones after natural disasters. I spent more free time speaking to students > about technology and diversity. For an entire school year, I taught CS > classes twice a week at a local low income high school. > The company was > open. We had a weekly meeting called TGIF where anyone in the company could > ask questions of, and raise concerns with, the execs. We got real answers. > >At the time, Rachel Whetstone was a VP at Google and you knew when she > answered your question at TGIF, you were going to get an honest and sincere > answer with a clear plan to fix things and no excuses. Rachel Whetstone left > Google in 2015.

>In 2017, Google bid for Project Maven, a contract with the US Government that would incorporate AI into drones. "When Google won the Maven contract in late September, the company opted not to say anything at all—even to its own employees." > I joined Google because we were the good guys. Building AI for weapons isn't a good guy thing. So they didn't tell us.

> In 2018, it came out that Google had been planning to relaunch in China with > censored search, a project known as Dragonfly.

"The engine would blacklist search terms like 'human rights' and 'student protest,' and would produce government-controlled results for 'air quality.' " > This project was kept secret internally as well. Can't let the employees know we're not the good guys.

>In 2018, it came out that "a woman who worked for Google had accused Android cofounder Andy Rubin of coercing her to perform oral sex in a hotel room". Rubin had been let go with a $90 million severance package. > The company's goodbye email included:

"I want to wish Andy all the best with what's next. With Android he created something truly remarkable — with a billion-plus happy users."

> "After Mr. Rubin left, the company invested millions of dollars in his next > venture."

>There's some controversy over the payout and if it was necessary or not. But there's no two sides to investing in his next company. He sexually assaulted an employee and we continued to work with him. > "The story didn't stop at Rubin. Another high-performing executive, Amit Singhal, the former head of Google Search, was given a multimillion-dollar exit package after a female employee accused him of groping her at an off-site work event." > "A third, Richard DeVaul, allegedly told a female job candidate that he was in a polyamorous relationship during her interview and invited her to meet him at Burning Man, where he asked if he could give her a massage." DeVaul was not fired.

>The coverups surprised me as much as the sexual assault and harassment. We didn't do stuff like this here. We hired good people and didn't let people get away with stuff like this. We cared about making a safe environment for women, just look at all our diversity initiatives. > And we definitely didn't cover it up. But we had hidden Project Maven and Dragonfly from employees, why not this?

>Again and again, we asked the execs for answers. The answers became less sincere. Questions were dodged. We were given corp speak and sometimes actual lies. > On November 1, 2018 I walked out with twenty thousand other employees around the world. In New York, there were so many of us I couldn't get anywhere near close enough to hear the speakers. > That week, I and a few other female engineers were invited to a meeting with a VP of my org. One woman talked about how she felt confident coming out of the walkout. That she felt the company had really come together and she was so proud to be at Google. >We all disagreed. Later in the meeting, it came out that she was not an engineer but was actually part of HR.

>In December 2018, one of the walkout organizers, Meredith Whitaker "was told she would have to leave the Google Cloud organization, where she had worked for three years." > Another organizer, Claire Stapleton, "was told that her role at YouTube would be "restructured" and she would lose half her reports and responsibilities."

>They held a retaliation sit in in New York where we listened to their stories and the anonymized stories of others who had experienced retaliation. > This was the last straw for me. After Dragonfly and Maven, I no longer trusted the company to make ethical decisions.

>After many reports of sexual harassment and assault by VPs with high exit packages, I no longer believed we had employees' best interests in mind, especially those of minorities. >And after the retaliation faced by walkout organizers, I no longer believed I could do anything about it. >I set my LinkedIn to "open to offers" the day the retaliation stories were published. I started interviewing soon after and submitted my resignation in July. >I have so much love for what Google used to be and that's why I stayed for so long. Maybe they can be that again, but I'm not going to work for a company I don't believe in while I wait to find out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah, Google sure is going downwards. It was such a great place at one point...</comment>